Opinion
Civil Action No. 16-12735
08-23-2018
D. RODNEY ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW RYAN, SGT. SABBI, SERINA KELLEY, JEFFREY MORIN, MICHEAL CONNELLY, JAMES CRAIG, CITY OF DETROIT MAYOR DAVE BING, and JOHN DOES 1-2, Defendants.
Honorable Linda V. Parker
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY AS MOOT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER [102]
On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff Rodney Rogers ("Rogers") filed his pro se civil rights complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against several defendants. (Doc. #1). On August 19, 2016, this case was referred to the undersigned for all pretrial purposes. (Doc. #9).
Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Court Order, which was filed on June 29, 2018. (Doc. #102). In their motion, Defendants point out that, in an order dated June 18, 2018, this Court specifically ordered Rogers to sign certain authorizations for release of medical records (which previously had been presented to him) and return those signed authorizations to Defendants on or before June 29, 2018. (Doc. #98). According to Defendants, at the time of the filing of the instant motion, Rogers still had not complied with the Court's order; thus, they moved for dismissal of Rogers' complaint. (Doc. #102).
On July 24, 2018, this Court held a telephonic hearing on Defendants' motion to dismiss, along with several other outstanding motions. At that hearing, and in a follow-up order, Rogers was again directed to complete and sign the authorizations for release of medical records previously provided to him and return such signed authorizations to Defendants. (Doc. #108). Moreover, Rogers was expressly warned, in writing, "that his failure to do so may result in sanctions, up to and including dismissal of his complaint." (Id. at 2). Subsequently, the Court received notice that Rogers did in fact provide the signed authorizations in compliance with the Court's order.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Court Order (Doc. #102) be DENIED AS MOOT. Dated: August 23, 2018
Ann Arbor, Michigan
s/David R. Grand
DAVID R. GRAND
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Within 14 days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation and Order, any party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations and the order set forth above. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(1). Failure to timely file objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, (1985); United States v. Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005). Only specific objections to this Report and Recommendation will be preserved for the Court's appellate review; raising some objections but not others will not preserve all objections a party may have. See Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987); see also Frontier Ins. Co. v. Blaty, 454 F.3d 590, 596-97 (6th Cir. 2006). Copies of any objections must be served upon the Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2).
A party may respond to another party's objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1). Any such response should be concise, and should address specifically, and in the same order raised, each issue presented in the objections.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court's ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on August 23, 2018.
s/Eddrey O. Butts
EDDREY O. BUTTS
Case Manager